Recording and Measuring Impact of Prevention
Activities

133. The homelessness statistics system - HL1 - should be used
to record homeless presentations and those threatened with
homelessness if there is reason to believe that the applicant is
homeless. Local authorities should not wait until the beginning of
a formal assessment before starting an HL1 recording if there is an
earlier informal assessment which indicates that the applicant is
homeless.

134. Outcomes from activities, which aim to prevent homelessness
or sustain housing will include:

Households, which might otherwise have presented as homeless
achieving a positive outcome and therefore not presenting;

Households presenting as threatened with homelessness whose
cases are resolved before they actually become homeless; and

Homeless households sustaining their tenancies following the
outcome of their homeless presentations.

135. The HL1 can provide indirect evidence on the first of these
outcomes and direct evidence on the second and third, but cannot
tell the full story. To get a good understanding of the impact of
your local prevention strategy it will also be important to
identify and measure locally those aspects of the strategy, which
you anticipate will be "key" to its success and which will not be
picked up in the homelessness statistics.

136. The HL1 gathers information on the composition of
households presenting as homeless, the circumstances of the
applicant, the assessment, the support needs and the outcome. The
revised HL1, introduced from April 2007, gathers detailed
information on the previous living circumstances and main reasons
for homelessness. Taken together, these can identify specific
groups for which you will have targeted prevention activities.

137. The diagram at
Appendix 1 uses the example of homelessness
prevention for people awaiting discharge from hospital to
illustrate what the HL1 can and can't tell you about the
effectiveness of prevention activity for this group. Key points
from the diagram about recording and interpreting the HL1 data and
about useful information to gather locally are:

A positive prevention outcome - from activity
recorded on the HL1 includes those who were threatened with
homelessness and for whom your local authority discharged its
duty before they became homeless;

Negative prevention outcomes - which would be
expected to reduce as the targeted strategy becomes more
effective - including the number who become homeless on discharge
and those for whom the local authority did not discharge its duty
before they became homeless. (In assessing negative outcomes,
further analysis of final outcome of the application or time
taken to complete the application should, nevertheless, be able
to demonstrate the effectiveness of early intervention.);

To get a good understanding of the overall impact of the
prevention activity it would be important to record those who
achieve a positive resolution without being recorded as either
homeless or threatened with homelessness at any stage.

138. A key feature of this approach is the need to draw a clear
distinction between those who are homeless and those who are
threatened with homelessness. Analysis of current statistics
suggests that a number of those recorded currently as homeless
might be more appropriately recorded as 'threatened with
homelessness'. For example in 2007/08, of the 1,484 who were
homeless or threatened with homelessness from prison, only 33 were
recorded as threatened with homelessness. This suggests that either
there is very little early intervention for this group, or that no
clear distinction is being made between the two categories.

139. In addition to using the HL1 to record information, the
following recommendations set out additional information that could
be captured to help monitor the efficacy of prevention
activities:

A new
Accounts Commission performance indicator -
Indicator 19b - introduced from 2008/09 will record, for those
placed in council stock as a result of a homelessness
application, the proportion who maintain their tenancy for at
least 12 months. The Scottish Housing Regulator has now decided
to gather equivalent information for those placed in housing
association stock through the
Annual Performance Statistical Returns (
APSR).
Additionally, it is recommended that it would be helpful to
collect data on tenancy sustainment for all groups to use as
comparison. This would help to build a local picture of what
works well and what doesn't;

Where prevention activity is targeted at ensuring sustainable
outcomes for particular groups following a homelessness
application, an analysis of homelessness repeats for the group of
interest will give a measure of negative prevention outcomes,
which you would aim to reduce through your prevention strategy.
Also, where an applicant does make a repeat application, the
prior circumstances and reasons for homelessness for the latest
application should give a useful insight into why the prevention
activity failed in this latest case;

Local authorities should consider monitoring the numbers of
households referred for help to specific homelessness prevention
services and the proportion of such cases resulting in "success"
where such "success" is clearly agreed and defined;

Local authorities using the private sector would find it
helpful to negotiate with those landlords accepting,
e.g.RDG scheme
referrals, to notify them when tenancies are under threat, (
i.e. before the landlord has any duty under section
11 regulations) and if tenancies are terminated. This will allow
local authorities to intervene and negotiate if possible to
prevent the tenancy from being lost or failing that to help
arrange another tenancy for the household.;

There are different definitions of success which may need to
be taken into account when monitoring the efficacy of different
types of prevention activities. For example, if someone is at
risk of becoming homeless, measuring whether or not they have
become homeless may seem like an obvious measure of success and
is certainly useful to ascertain to see if they have avoided the
crisis of becoming homeless. However it will not say anything
about whether the underlying cause of their vulnerability to
homelessness has been addressed; for example a young person who
is assessed as being at risk of becoming homeless due to family
problems may continue to stay in the family home - but this
arrangement may be at risk of breaking down with little notice if
the underlying causes of friction are not addressed.

When Housing Options services are more fully developed it
would be helpful to monitor the number of people assisted into
sustainable accommodation as an outcome.